The Ref Stop

Throw ins - just a couple of things

I was the coach, but when I’m coaching, I‘m focused on my team. And as a coach I have much better things to do after a game than put on my ref instructor hat. But I think you really miss the point. Coaching isn’t about being right about the LOTG or the arks decision. It’s about putting your team in the best position to be successful, and teaching your players skills to be successful In the future. One of those skills is adapting to referees. If referees are incorrectly calling minor contact a foul, it doesn’t help to whine about it—smart players adjust their level of contact. This really isn’t that different.
Yeah, exactly. I had a player at the weekend moan after I gave a foul that "you've been giving those soft ones all game" - to which I was able to reply " so why do you keep doing it?" In an otherwise fairly demoralising game, that was a high point!
 
The Ref Stop
I think that's the issue - at one time everyone knew what was an incorrectly taken throw * but then players and referees starting messing around asking what it literally meant, and now the law which once was universally understood is not now precise enough to answer that question: when should the thrower let go of the ball?
I'm fairly sure that people only "knew" what an incorrectly-taken throw was in the same way that they "knew" that a player standing in an offside position was guilty of an offside offence even if they weren't involved in active play.

The laws have never given any more detailed description of the exact mechanics of a throw, than they do now. Here for instance, is the law wording from 1903:

The player throwing the ball must stand on the touch-line facing the field of play, and shall throw the ball in over his head with both hands in any direction, and it shall be in play when thrown in.

And from 1925:

The player throwing the ball must stand with both feet on the ground outside the touch-line facing the field of play, and shall throw the ball in over his head with both hands in any direction, and it shall be in play when thrown in.

1932:
The player throwing the ball must stand on both feet on or outside the touch-line facing the field of play, and shall throw the ball in over his head with both hands in any direction, and it shall be in play when thrown in.

1960:
The thrower at the moment of delivering the ball must face the field of play and part of each foot shall be either on the touch-line or on the ground outside the touch-line. The thrower shall use both hands and shall deliver the ball from over his head.

1997:
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:

• faces the field of play

• has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line

• uses both hands

• delivers the ball from behind and over his head

As @ChasObserverRefDeveloper alluded to, none of these earlier versions of the law specified a release point (or talked about the trajectory the ball had to take after being released).

So I'm not sure that people could have known with any greater degree of certainty in the past than they do now, what an improperly-taken throw-in was, since the law has never been particularly precise about mechanics, in any of its incarnations.
 
I'm fairly sure that people only "knew" what an incorrectly-taken throw was in the same way that they "knew" that a player standing in an offside position was guilty of an offside offence even if they weren't involved in active play.

The laws have never given any more detailed description of the exact mechanics of a throw, than they do now. Here for instance, is the law wording from 1903:



And from 1925:



1932:


1960:


1997:


As @ChasObserverRefDeveloper alluded to, none of these earlier versions of the law specified a release point (or talked about the trajectory the ball had to take after being released).

So I'm not sure that people could have known with any greater degree of certainty in the past than they do now, what an improperly-taken throw-in was, since the law has never been particularly precise about mechanics, in any of its incarnations.
It never needed to be. Because everyone was certain.
 
Which is why no one ever appeals for a foul throw when it clearly isn't, right?
I think you're missing the point.

People would appeal for a foul throw and the ref would give it - with or without an appeal because everyone knew what a foul throw looked like.

How we got from there to here doesn't really matter, but now we have threads asking what a foul throw is, and some referees seemingly happy for players to throw effectively with one hand with the other as guide and/or impart spin because there's "no mention of spinning in the laws" (nor is there any word about "dropping"). The result is that where once everyone knew what a foul throw was, I'm not sure if anyone can be sure now (for the mechanics of the throw).
 
Last edited:
R seems to be indicating it was improper as a spike. But that just ain't anything close to the kind of spike I think can be defended as improper. I see that as just a flat out wrong call.
 
Turning it around, what in law makes that throw illegal?
I didn't ask whether it was legal or illegal.

I asked when it became legal.

Some EPL refs still think it's illegal.

I'm complaining that the interpretation of the law changed (from a time when that throw would always be given as a foul throw), and no-one can say when it changed. And no-one can now say whether a throw from "over the head" means while it's over the head, or any time thereafter. And (see above) young players apparently must be taught to throw in the way it always meant, just in case they get a referee who thinks that's what it still means.
 
The result is that where once everyone knew what a foul throw was, I'm not sure if anyone can be sure now (for the mechanics of the throw).
You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. People didn't "know" what a foul throw was then, at least not to any greater extent than they do now. Lots of people (though by no means everyone) thought they knew, based on various and sundry preconceived notions of things which are not contained in the law, which is a different thing.

One of the first things I realized after becoming familiar with Law 15 (and even more so, after learning its history) was that many of the preconceived ideas I had developed (over years of simply playing and watching the game) as to what a so-called "foul throw" was, were wrong.

Once I became a referee I tried to implement that newly-acquired knowledge and right from the start, I made it a habit not to penalize throws simply because they "looked wrong" but only when the requirements of the law were not actually met.

As I always refereed mostly youth games, where teaching the laws is a facet of what we do, I developed a little mantra which I would repeat to players (especially younger ones) of, "Both feet on the ground, both hands behind the head."

Not a perfect summation I know, but since most players had apparently been coached to keep both feet behind the line, I found that if those two requirements were also met, about 99.9% of throws would be correctly taken.
 
You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. People didn't "know" what a foul throw was then, at least not to any greater extent than they do now. Lots of people (though by no means everyone) thought they knew, based on various and sundry preconceived notions of things which are not contained in the law, which is a different thing.

One of the first things I realized after becoming familiar with Law 15 (and even more so, after learning its history) was that many of the preconceived ideas I had developed (over years of simply playing and watching the game) as to what a so-called "foul throw" was, were wrong.

Once I became a referee I tried to implement that newly-acquired knowledge and right from the start, I made it a habit not to penalize throws simply because they "looked wrong" but only when the requirements of the law were not actually met.

As I always refereed mostly youth games, where teaching the laws is a facet of what we do, I developed a little mantra which I would repeat to players (especially younger ones) of, "Both feet on the ground, both hands behind the head."

Not a perfect summation I know, but since most players had apparently been coached to keep both feet behind the line, I found that if those two requirements were also met, about 99.9% of throws would be correctly taken.
I think you've illustrated my point! For "preconceived", read "what had been understood since the law was written".

Years after thinking you knew (like everyone else) what a foul throw was, you think "oh, the law says over the head but doesn't mean release it over the head".

So it's your fault...
 
The first six posts in this thread answered the original point made . . . and now it's become Bloovee tilting at windmills, getting nowhere because the answers are all "ITOOTR", and all this at a time when Manchester City fans have other matters to worry about.💰💰💰
 
Yet we still get foul throws called in the EPL and nobody knows what was wrong with it. ITOOTR for a throw in is just odd.
 
Yet we still get foul throws called in the EPL and nobody knows what was wrong with it. ITOOTR for a throw in is just odd.
They're very rare and usually for the generally accepted idea that if you throw the ball down towards the ground it's a foul throw. Based on the spirit behind the language in the LOTG
 
Back
Top